You could start by the fact that very few Church Fathers actually believed that the passages meant Petrine supremacy in the way that RCs interpret it. Most of them interpreted it as referring to the faith of St. Peter or viewed St. Peter as being a "rock" only in the sense that the faith flowed from him. Even St. Augustine was undecided about the passage. In his Retractions, he mentions the two views of the passage and leaves it open for the reader to decide.

That St Peter is also the Rock is clear. The rock is St Peter, his Faith and Christ. But to say this does not imply Vatican I ecclesiology by any mean.

Also, there are 3 petrine sees, and St John Chrysostom called St Flavian bishop of Constantinople "Peter".

As I see Catholic apology it's a matter of significance of 'facts' because one just assumes that they're significant.

Thus if Peter is praised, it's significant. However if someone else is equally praised, it's ignored, because it doesn't fit the theory.

It is interesting to see comments made here follow that same thought-process. It's noted that a pope opposed a canon of one Council. What's ignored is the insignificance of this act to the rest of the church, and the fact that the papacy eventually accepted that canon, anyway.

A post above notes the councils and how they worked. This is the point.

Take the issue of the Arians. The pope convoked a local council and condemned Arianism

In the Catholic theory of church what should have happened next is that he would issue a Bull and have this circulated throughout the churches of the world.

What actually happened doesn't fit that model. Constantine, equal of the Apostles convoked a council which met and judged matters for themselves.

Certainly, like the pope, they condemned Arianism, but why did they even judge for themselves?

Same with Nestorius. Condemned by the pope as a heretic, and yet at a general council (headed by Meletius who was not in communion with Rome) they accorded to Nestorius all due honour as befitted his rank BECAUSE they had not yet judged him unworthy of that rank.

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church. We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

There's many problems with your response.

Firstly it rests on no evidence; your argument for the papacy then rests on him not demonstrating any power of the papacy!

Your argument also slightly re-works an issue. You talk of a bull being issued AFTER the cardinals were consulted. The example I gave was more a case of the pope judging AND THEN the cardinals consulting.

(whilst ignoring specifics such as Meletius chairing a council whilst not in communion with Rome)

Well, my friend It would stand to reason that a person not in communion with Rome would recognize someone who Rome condemned as a heretic.

He misspoke. It was at Chalcedon where Dioscoros was received with full honor despite having been excommunicated by Pope Leo. There is nothing to indicate that the fathers of Chalcedon were not in communion with Rome.

The episode with Meletius is different. He was the chosen to be the president of the First Council of Constantinople, despite not being in communion with Rome at the time.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

A post above notes the councils and how they worked. This is the point.

Take the issue of the Arians. The pope convoked a local council and condemned Arianism

In the Catholic theory of church what should have happened next is that he would issue a Bull and have this circulated throughout the churches of the world.

What actually happened doesn't fit that model. Constantine, equal of the Apostles convoked a council which met and judged matters for themselves.

Certainly, like the pope, they condemned Arianism, but why did they even judge for themselves?

Same with Nestorius. Condemned by the pope as a heretic, and yet at a general council (headed by Meletius who was not in communion with Rome) they accorded to Nestorius all due honour as befitted his rank BECAUSE they had not yet judged him unworthy of that rank.

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church. We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

There's many problems with your response.

Firstly it rests on no evidence; your argument for the papacy then rests on him not demonstrating any power of the papacy!

Your argument also slightly re-works an issue. You talk of a bull being issued AFTER the cardinals were consulted. The example I gave was more a case of the pope judging AND THEN the cardinals consulting.

(whilst ignoring specifics such as Meletius chairing a council whilst not in communion with Rome)

Well, my friend It would stand to reason that a person not in communion with Rome would recognize someone who Rome condemned as a heretic.

He misspoke. It was at Chalcedon where Dioscoros was received with full honor despite having been excommunicated by Pope Leo. There is nothing to indicate that the fathers of Chalcedon were not in communion with Rome.

The episode with Meletius is different. He was the chosen to be the president of the First Council of Constantinople, despite not being in communion with Rome at the time.

How does a letter of a handful of Patriarchs speak for the Entire Church? Who gave those handful the authority?

The list of Orthodox hierarchs undersigning those documents, including the patriarchs of the five ancient historic sees, represent nothing less than the mind and will of the Orthodox Church, which has neither been in submission to the Roman pontiff, nor commemorated him liturgically, since the Great Schism. Their authority comes from the Apostles, who were all given the authority to bind and loose by Christ Himself, not just Peter. All were commanded to go out to the nations and spread the Gospel, not just Peter. All were commanded to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, not just Peter.All were commanded to teach as He had taught them, not just Peter.

Yet Simon was renamed Peter, the rock? The rock which God will build his Church on? Yet all Catholic Bishops also baptize, spread the gospel, bind and loose their flocks, pass on the Faith etc. You seem to set up a False analogy of saying it is the Pope against all Bishops, when the Correct analogy is it is the Pope and a Majority of the Bishops against a small faction of Bishops not in Union with the Pope.

The rock on which the Church is founded is Peter's faith, not Peter's person. The meaning of this scripture passage is quite clear in its original Greek.

The "minority of bishops not in union with the Pope" you refer to are the representatives of the Orthodox Church, which has not been in communion with the church of Rome for a thousand years. The Apostolic Succession of Orthodox bishops is drawn from all of the apostles, not just Peter alone, as is the case in the RCC. As Christ gave all the apostles, not just one, the authority to bind and loose, and bestowed them all, not just one, with the Holy Spirit, so do all Orthodox bishops have equal authority, and operate in a truly conciliar fashion. There is no room for, nor tradition of, a "supreme pontiff" in Orthodoxy.

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church. We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

You're arguing for a case of the Roman Church post-schism, which includes developments in ecclesiology that were non-existent in the First Millennium. The Roman Church had councils in the First Millennium and it was non-binding to the Churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction (which is not universal). I'd point to the First Lateran Council of 649 (not the First "Ecumenical" Council of Lateran) where Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos condemned Monothelitism. But that council was never accepted as Ecumenical and the same teaching was only accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople III.

Yes, if Pastor Aeternus was correct, the 1st Lateran Council of 649 would be the 6th Ecumenical Council.

Yes. Also if Papal Supremacy and Infallibility existed in the First Millennium, Pope St. Martin would have just told all the other Patriarchs to get in line and accept Lateran or depose them all as bishops for heresy. Obviously that did not happen.

No, they would have followed the Model laid down by the Apostles, which would have involved calling a council, even if the final decision was the Popes like we see when the Pope line item vetoed the 28th Canon of Chalcedon.

You are seeing things.

We have the letter of Archbishop St. Leo I of Rome complaining to the Empress that his own suffragans were following canon 28 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. It was followed at all the following three Ecumenical Councils, void Papal veto notwithstanding.

Latern was a Council, hence "First Council of the Lateran" or "Lateran Council of 649."

I would be interested in the source for that, considering even Eastern theologians only refered to the 27 canons of Chalcedon.

That the 28th canon of Chalcedon was believed to be a legitimate canon in the East is evidenced by the fact that the council of Trullo reconfirmed both this canon and the third canon of the First Council of Constantinople in its 36th canon. From the Seventh Ecumenical Council, we also see several expansions of the canonical power granted to Constantinople. For example, canon 11 of Second Nicaea gives the bishop of Constantinople the right to appoint by his own authority the steward of any metropolis should the metropolitan bishop fail to appoint one (bishops are obliged to do so by canon 26 of Constantinople). What Eastern canonists are you thinking of, I wonder?

« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 08:48:45 PM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

You could start by the fact that very few Church Fathers actually believed that the passages meant Petrine supremacy in the way that RCs interpret it. Most of them interpreted it as referring to the faith of St. Peter or viewed St. Peter as being a "rock" only in the sense that the faith flowed from him. Even St. Augustine was undecided about the passage. In his Retractions, he mentions the two views of the passage and leaves it open for the reader to decide.

That St Peter is also the Rock is clear. The rock is St Peter, his Faith and Christ. But to say this does not imply Vatican I ecclesiology by any mean.

Also, there are 3 petrine sees, and St John Chrysostom called St Flavian bishop of Constantinople "Peter".

As I see Catholic apology it's a matter of significance of 'facts' because one just assumes that they're significant.

Thus if Peter is praised, it's significant. However if someone else is equally praised, it's ignored, because it doesn't fit the theory.

It is interesting to see comments made here follow that same thought-process. It's noted that a pope opposed a canon of one Council. What's ignored is the insignificance of this act to the rest of the church, and the fact that the papacy eventually accepted that canon, anyway.

It is also our fault. We must admit that the Popes of Rome since St Victor, have attempted to extend their authority and jurisdiction, and that yes, in that sense, there was some rather vague idea of the papacy(Vague because even then, it was very far from Vatican I or Gregory VII reform). But then we should explain them that the rest of the Church, that is the majority, rebuked them, from St Ireaneus to St Photius, along with the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Oecumenical Councils.

Old Rome was up to what New Rome is now. As long as the Phanar doesn't push its ideas and cross the line of Orthodox ecclesiology that the Fathers set up, we will remain in communion, as we did in the days of Abp. St. Victor. Cross it, and it will be 1054 all over again.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church. We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

You're arguing for a case of the Roman Church post-schism, which includes developments in ecclesiology that were non-existent in the First Millennium. The Roman Church had councils in the First Millennium and it was non-binding to the Churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction (which is not universal). I'd point to the First Lateran Council of 649 (not the First "Ecumenical" Council of Lateran) where Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos condemned Monothelitism. But that council was never accepted as Ecumenical and the same teaching was only accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople III.

Yes, if Pastor Aeternus was correct, the 1st Lateran Council of 649 would be the 6th Ecumenical Council.

Yes. Also if Papal Supremacy and Infallibility existed in the First Millennium, Pope St. Martin would have just told all the other Patriarchs to get in line and accept Lateran or depose them all as bishops for heresy. Obviously that did not happen.

No, they would have followed the Model laid down by the Apostles, which would have involved calling a council, even if the final decision was the Popes like we see when the Pope line item vetoed the 28th Canon of Chalcedon.

You are seeing things.

We have the letter of Archbishop St. Leo I of Rome complaining to the Empress that his own suffragans were following canon 28 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. It was followed at all the following three Ecumenical Councils, void Papal veto notwithstanding.

Latern was a Council, hence "First Council of the Lateran" or "Lateran Council of 649."

I would be interested in the source for that, considering even Eastern theologians only refered to the 27 canons of Chalcedon.

Hefele:

Quote

On the same day he wrote in very nearly the same terms to the Empress Pulcheria (Ep. 116), adding: "the present rulers combine princely power with apostolic doctrine and in a fourth letter of the same date, he charged his Nuntius at Constantinople, Bishop Julian of Cos, to use his influence with the Emperor, so that the papal decree confirming the Synod should be sent to all the bishops of the Empire. To the Empress Eudocia, the widow of the Emperor Theodosius II, who supported the Monophysites in Palestine, he has, he adds, at the wish of Marcian, addressed a hortatory letter; but in the matter of the deposed Archdeacon Aetius, Julian must take no further steps lest harm should be done. Finally, he says that to Anatolius he writes no longer, since he persists in his presumption, and has induced the Illyrian bishops also to subscribe the 28th canon.

Excursus on the Later History of Canon XXVIII.Among the bishops who gave their answers at the last session to the question whether their subscription to the canons was voluntary or forced was Eusebius, bishop of Dorylæum, an Asiatic bishop who said that he had read the Constantinopolitan canon to “the holy pope of Rome in presence of clerics of Constantinople, and that he had accepted it” (L. and C., Conc., iv. 815). But quite possibly this evidence is of little value. But what is more to the point is that the Papal legates most probably had already at this very council recognized the right of Constantinople to rank immediately after Rome. For at the very first session when the Acts of the Latrocinium were read, it was found that to Flavian, the Archbishop of Constantinople, was given only the fifth place. Against this the bishop protested and asked, “Why did not Flavian receive his position?” and the papal legate Paschasinus answered: “We will, please God, recognize the present bishop Anatolius of Constantinople as the first [i.e. after us], but Dioscorus made Flavian the fifth.” It would seem to be in vain to attempt to escape the force of these words by comparing with them the statement made in the last session, in a moment of heat and indignation, by Lucentius the papal legate, that the canons of Constantinople were not found among those of the Roman Code. It may well be that this statement was true, and yet it does not in any way lessen the importance of the fact that at the first session (a very different thing from the sixteenth) Paschasinus had admitted that Constantinople enjoyed the second place. It would seem that Quesnel has proved his point, notwithstanding the attempts of the Ballerini to counteract and overthrow his arguments.It would be the height of absurdity for any one to attempt to deny that the canon of Constantinople was entirely in force and practical execution, as far of those most interested were concerned, long before the meeting of the council of Chalcedon, and in 394, only thirteen years after the adoption of the canon, we find the bishop of Constantinople presiding at a synod at which both the bishop of Alexandria and the bishop of Antioch were present.St. Leo made, in connexion with this matter, some statements which perhaps need not be commented upon, but should certainly not be forgotten. In his epistle to Anatolius (no. cvi.) in speaking of the third canon of Constantinople he says: “That document of certain bishops has never been brought by your predecessors to the knowledge of the Apostolic See.” And in writing to the Empress (Ep. cv., ad Pulch.) he makes the following statement, strangely contrary to what she at least knew to be the fact, “To this concession a long course of years has given no effect!”We need not stop to consider the question why Leo rejected the xxviijth canon of Chalcedon. It is certain that he rejected it and those who wish to see the motive of this rejection considered at length are referred to Quesnel and to the Ballerini; the former affirming that it was because of its encroachments upon the prerogatives of his own see, the latter urging that it was only out of his zeal for the keeping in full force of the Nicene decree.Leo can never be charged with weakness. His rejection of the canon was absolute and unequivocal. In writing to the Emperor he says that Anatolius only got the See of Constantinople by his consent, that he should behave himself modestly, and that there is no way he can make of Constantinople “an Apostolic See,” and adds that “only from love of peace and for the restoration of the unity of the faith” he has “abstained from annulling this ordination” (Ep. civ.).To the Empress he wrote with still greater violence: “As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter” (Ep. cv.).The papal annulling does not appear to have been of much force, for Leo himself confesses, in a letter written about a year later to the Empress Pulcheria (Ep. cxvi.), that the Illyrian bishops had since the council subscribed the xxviiith canon.The pope had taken occasion in his letter in which he announced his acceptance of the doctrinal decrees of Chalcedon to go on further and express his rejection of the canons. This part of the letter was left unread throughout the Greek empire, and Leo complains of it to Julian of Cos (Ep. cxxvij.).Leo never gave over his opposition, although the breach was made up between him and Anatolius by an apparently insincere letter on the part of the latter (Ep. cxxxii.). Leo’s successors followed his example in rejecting the canons, both the IIId of Constantinople and the XXVIIIth of Chalcedon, but as M. l’abbé Duchesne so admirably says: “Mais leur voix fut peu écoutée; on leur accorda sans doute des satisfactions, mais de pure cérémonie.” But Justinian acknowledged the Constantinopolitan and Chalcedonian rank of Constantinople in his CXXXIst Novel. (cap. j.), and the Synod in Trullo in canon xxxvj. renewed exactly canon xxviij. of Chalcedon. Moreover the Seventh Ecumenical with the approval of the Papal Legates gave a general sanction to all the canons accepted by the Trullan Synod. And finally in 1215 the Fourth Council of the Lateran in its Vth Canon acknowledged Constantinople’s rank as immediately after Rome, but this was while Constantinople was in the hands of the Latins! Subsequently at Florence the second rank, in accordance with the canons of I. Constantinople and of Chalcedon (which had been annulled by Leo) was given to the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, and so the opposition of Rome gave way after seven centuries and a half, and the Nicene Canon which Leo declared to be “inspired by the Holy Ghost” and “valid to the end of time” (Ep. cvi.), was set at nought by Leo’s successor in the Apostolic See.

Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church. We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

You're arguing for a case of the Roman Church post-schism, which includes developments in ecclesiology that were non-existent in the First Millennium. The Roman Church had councils in the First Millennium and it was non-binding to the Churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction (which is not universal). I'd point to the First Lateran Council of 649 (not the First "Ecumenical" Council of Lateran) where Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos condemned Monothelitism. But that council was never accepted as Ecumenical and the same teaching was only accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople III.

Yes, if Pastor Aeternus was correct, the 1st Lateran Council of 649 would be the 6th Ecumenical Council.

Yes. Also if Papal Supremacy and Infallibility existed in the First Millennium, Pope St. Martin would have just told all the other Patriarchs to get in line and accept Lateran or depose them all as bishops for heresy. Obviously that did not happen.

No, they would have followed the Model laid down by the Apostles, which would have involved calling a council, even if the final decision was the Popes like we see when the Pope line item vetoed the 28th Canon of Chalcedon.

The Patriarch and Emperor wrote conciliatory letters to Leo reminding him that Canon 28 "merely sanctioned a custom of 60-70 years in the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace".

I guess St Leo didn't have much authority with his veto.

Just like what the Emperor said in the times of the 5th oecumenical council: "If you have condemned the three chapters I have no need of this new document for I have from you many others of the same content. If however you have in this new document departed from your earlier declarations, you have condemned yourself". (~Mansi IX 349).

And about your earlier question on how do we know that the Pope has an orthodox faith or not, adding to what ialmisry already said:

"That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason: because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters...

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.

But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation."

It is notewhorthy that St Vincent, in actual south of France, in Rome's jurisdiction, never mentions the Bishop of Rome. If he didn't need it, we don't need it either.

Now, you can argue with this saint, but History proves that the Bishop of Rome was not the criteria for Truth: St Meletius and 2nd Oecumenical Council, Vigilius case prior and during the 5th Oecumenical Council, Honorius case, The flip flop of Rome Popes about the 8th oecumenical Council.

I am going to find it hard to have a reasonable discussion with you if you present misinformation

St Vincent did talk about the Papacy

"Holy Pope Sixtus then says in an Epistle which he wrote on Nestorius's matter to the bishop of Antioch, "Therefore, because, as the Apostle says, the faith is one,—evidently the faith which has obtained hitherto,—let us believe the things that are to be said, and say the things that are to be held." What are the things that are to be believed and to be said? He goes on: "Let no license be allowed to novelty, because it is not fit that any addition should be made to antiquity. Let not the clear faith and belief of our forefathers be fouled by any muddy admixture." A truly apostolic sentiment! He enhances the belief of the Fathers by the epithet of clearness; profane novelties he calls muddy.

Holy Pope Celestine also expresses himself in like manner and to the same effect. For in the Epistle which he wrote to the priests of Gaul, charging them with connivance with error, in that by their silence they failed in their duty to the ancient faith, and allowed profane novelties to spring up, he says: "We are deservedly to blame if we encourage error by silence. Therefore rebuke these people. Restrain their liberty of preaching." But here some one may doubt who they are whose liberty to preach as they list he forbids,—the preachers of antiquity or the devisers of novelty. Let himself tell us; let himself resolve the reader's doubt. For he goes on: "If the case be so (that is, if the case be so as certain persons complain to me touching your cities and provinces, that by your hurtful dissimulation you cause them to consent to certain novelties), if the case be so, let novelty cease to assail antiquity." This, then, was the sentence of blessed Celestine, not that antiquity should cease to subvert novelty, but that novelty should cease to assail antiquity. (Commonitory, Chapter 32)."

As far as the other historic examples their are others as well, but a person should read the limitations that Vatican I places on Papal Authority and Infallibility and understand those events in that context.

Dont take your misunderstanding of patristic texts for my supposed misinformation. St Vincent does not talk about the Papacy in your quotes but of Popes citations. And those Popes citations say the same thing that St Vincent said, let no novelty assail antiquity. Nothing to do with the Papacy.

The fact remains: when asked how to know the truth about Faith, he never mentions the Papacy, or the Pope. Deal with your glasses before wondering about so called "rational discution".

How does a letter of a handful of Patriarchs speak for the Entire Church? Who gave those handful the authority?

The list of Orthodox hierarchs undersigning those documents, including the patriarchs of the five ancient historic sees, represent nothing less than the mind and will of the Orthodox Church, which has neither been in submission to the Roman pontiff, nor commemorated him liturgically, since the Great Schism. Their authority comes from the Apostles, who were all given the authority to bind and loose by Christ Himself, not just Peter. All were commanded to go out to the nations and spread the Gospel, not just Peter. All were commanded to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, not just Peter.All were commanded to teach as He had taught them, not just Peter.

Yet Simon was renamed Peter, the rock? The rock which God will build his Church on? Yet all Catholic Bishops also baptize, spread the gospel, bind and loose their flocks, pass on the Faith etc. You seem to set up a False analogy of saying it is the Pope against all Bishops, when the Correct analogy is it is the Pope and a Majority of the Bishops against a small faction of Bishops not in Union with the Pope.

The rock on which the Church is founded is Peter's faith, not Peter's person. The meaning of this scripture passage is quite clear in its original Greek.

The "minority of bishops not in union with the Pope" you refer to are the representatives of the Orthodox Church, which has not been in communion with the church of Rome for a thousand years. The Apostolic Succession of Orthodox bishops is drawn from all of the apostles, not just Peter alone, as is the case in the RCC. As Christ gave all the apostles, not just one, the authority to bind and loose, and bestowed them all, not just one, with the Holy Spirit, so do all Orthodox bishops have equal authority, and operate in a truly conciliar fashion. There is no room for, nor tradition of, a "supreme pontiff" in Orthodoxy.

No, the Rock is also St Peter, who became a rock because of his Faith. The Fathers agree about it:

For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. "St Leo http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360303.htm

We may conclude that the early church Fathers and Christian writers recognized Peter’s position of honor and preeminence in the New Testament period ... Their interpretations of Jesus’ promise to Peter− ’You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church’−converge with those modern exegetes: the rock is Peter. But they also interpreted the rock as Peter’s confession. The Church is built on Peter, or the church is built upon the rock, which is Peter’s confession. We cannot find two distinct groups of exegetes, one with whom states that ‘the rock is Peter,’ while the other concludes that ‘the rock is Peter’s confession.’ In the writings of any given author, one can find both interpretations simultaneously (Kesich).... [T]he great Cappadocians, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Augustine all concur in affirming that the faith of Simon made it possible for him to become the Rock on which the Church is foundedJohn Meyyendorf.

But St Peter being the Rock has nothing to do with the Papacy and certainly does not prove it. The papacy is a fiction, and we do not need to deny Peter being the rock to show it.

Napoletani, the terms "rock", "pillar" "foundation", etc are used to describe other Apostles, particularly Andrew, John and Paul, in their festal hymns, further weakening the Roman claim of Petrine supremacy, and showing that the Orthodox episcopal model is conciliar, not autocratic, just as Christ intended.

A post above notes the councils and how they worked. This is the point.

Take the issue of the Arians. The pope convoked a local council and condemned Arianism

In the Catholic theory of church what should have happened next is that he would issue a Bull and have this circulated throughout the churches of the world.

What actually happened doesn't fit that model. Constantine, equal of the Apostles convoked a council which met and judged matters for themselves.

Certainly, like the pope, they condemned Arianism, but why did they even judge for themselves?

Same with Nestorius. Condemned by the pope as a heretic, and yet at a general council (headed by Meletius who was not in communion with Rome) they accorded to Nestorius all due honour as befitted his rank BECAUSE they had not yet judged him unworthy of that rank.

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church. We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

There's many problems with your response.

Firstly it rests on no evidence; your argument for the papacy then rests on him not demonstrating any power of the papacy!

Your argument also slightly re-works an issue. You talk of a bull being issued AFTER the cardinals were consulted. The example I gave was more a case of the pope judging AND THEN the cardinals consulting.

(whilst ignoring specifics such as Meletius chairing a council whilst not in communion with Rome)

Well, my friend It would stand to reason that a person not in communion with Rome would recognize someone who Rome condemned as a heretic.

St. Meletius did not preside at the council of Ephesus but died 50 years earlier.

I think Montalban is perhaps conflating two events.

The first is the St. Meletius presided over the First Council of Constantinople, despite being out of communion with Rome.

The second is that Dioscoros (not Nestorius) was not immediately denied a seat at Chalcedon, despite the protestations of Pope Leo's legates, who had instructions from him not to allow Dioscoros to take a seat (because Pope Leo already considered Dioscoros to have been guilty of misconduct and had excommunicated him). The council itself only denied Dioscoros a seat once charges were brought against him not for the reason that Pope Leo had excommunicated him, but because one cannot judge his own case.

What you say is true, but Nestorius also was tried at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, although the Archbishop of Old Rome had already condemned him.

I very much doubt that Nestorius was received at Ephesus with all due honor, but then perhaps I am remembering wrong. I know for sure, however, that Dioscoros was treated with due honor at Chalcedon, before he was found guilty.

The emperor had called for bishops to assemble in the city of Ephesus. The emperor sent as his representative Count Candidian (Bury, J. B., (1958), History of the later Roman Empire : from the death of Theodosius I to the death of Justinian (A.D. 395 to A.D. 565) (Volume 1) ,(Dover Publications; NY), p353)

Two groups of bishops gathered in the city. One group of bishops formed around Cyril of Alexandria. The other group centered around Nestorius(Hill, B. R., (2004) Jesus, the Christ: Contemporary Perspectives, (Twenty-Third Publications), p230.

Both groups had duly assembled in Ephesus as commanded by the emperor. But which was the official council? Candidian was unable to control proceedings; to bring the two groups togetherRunciman, S., (1977), The Byzantine Theocracy, (Cambridge University Press), p37

Cyril had canonical grounds for opening the first session... "Nonetheless he must have been acutely aware that he could claim no legal status for his synod under imperial law until the official reading of the Emperor’s Sacra had taken place.” McGuckin, J, (2004), Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p78.

Cyril, in order to constitute a legal council needed to have the backing of the emperor, or his representative. However Candidian was a supporter of Nestorius.Chrystal, J., (1985) Authoritative Christianity (Volume One) (James Chrystal Publisher; Jersey City, NJ), p50.

Candidian went to the group supporting Cyril and demanded that they reconvene with Nestorius’ group. He said he had come with the Sacra and had no time to stand around and wait. Cyril asked him what did the Sacra say. Candidian read it out before Cyril’s group. He then realised that he had now formally given the go-ahead for Cyril’s group to begin as the council; because they were duly assembled as according to the wishes of the Emperor and the Sacra had been read before them. They thus convened the council, and effectively Nestorius’ group were left out in the cold. “When Candidian finished reading the Sacra he surely realised the full extent of his mistake. The Bishops acclaimed long life to the Emperor in demonstrative professions of loyalty, but now with the text officially declaimed in the symbolic presence of the whole Episcopal gathering the Synod of Ephesus was in formal session, legally as well as canonically sanctioned.” McGuckin, J, (2004), Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p79.

The group that had been duly assembled, with the Sacra of the Emperor read before it made it a legal council in the eyes of the civil authorities. By having the Sacra read out it served to legally validate the subsequent ActaMcGuckin, J, (2004), Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p81.

The council was only legal when the emperor’s representative had opened it, not as Catholics would imagine; solely because the Pope commanded it, or because the Pope's representative (as they imagine Cyril to be) was there.

The important facts therefore are:Nestorius had already been condemned by the pope but attended a council for the council to decide the matter. He had support, such as John of Antioch.

The matter was settled by a council judging for itself.

Nestorius (potentially) could have chaired the council (although the numbers of bishops in his circle were fewer then those around Cyril).

"Let us all beware of false apostles, who, coming to us in sheep's clothing, attempt to entice the more simple among us by various deceptive promises, regarding all things as lawful and allowing them for the sake of union, provided only that the Pope of Rome be recognized as supreme and infallible ruler and absolute sovereign of the universal Church, and only representative of Christ on earth, and the source of all grace. "

That is just a falsification, Catholics do not believe that the Pope is the source of all grace.

Catholics don't, but grace does the Vatican believe is not subject to its supreme pontiff's binding and loosening?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

How does a letter of a handful of Patriarchs speak for the Entire Church? Who gave those handful the authority?

The list of Orthodox hierarchs undersigning those documents, including the patriarchs of the five ancient historic sees, represent nothing less than the mind and will of the Orthodox Church, which has neither been in submission to the Roman pontiff, nor commemorated him liturgically, since the Great Schism. Their authority comes from the Apostles, who were all given the authority to bind and loose by Christ Himself, not just Peter. All were commanded to go out to the nations and spread the Gospel, not just Peter. All were commanded to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, not just Peter.All were commanded to teach as He had taught them, not just Peter.

Yet Simon was renamed Peter, the rock? The rock which God will build his Church on? Yet all Catholic Bishops also baptize, spread the gospel, bind and loose their flocks, pass on the Faith etc. You seem to set up a False analogy of saying it is the Pope against all Bishops, when the Correct analogy is it is the Pope and a Majority of the Bishops against a small faction of Bishops not in Union with the Pope.

If you mean by "small faction" the Orthodox episcopate of the Catholic Church, that would be the Little Flock that Our Lord tells us that the Father takes good pleasure in giving the Kingdom. Although it's not that little: there are just under 1,000 bishops. The Vatican has just over 5,000, the Mormons over 20,000 "bishops." When the Vatican tore the Patriarchate of the West out of Catholic Communion, only a minority faction of bishops followed him. The majority remained Orthodox.

The Vatican didn't significantly pull ahead in numbers until the imperialism of France and Spain/Portugal-and the Inquisition-helped it out. As it is now, half of its following live in Latin America (at least nominally-between the success of Protestant missions and the hang overs of Voodoo, Santeria, etc., one wonders how much the numbers can be trusted and what they mean).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

How does a letter of a handful of Patriarchs speak for the Entire Church? Who gave those handful the authority?

The list of Orthodox hierarchs undersigning those documents, including the patriarchs of the five ancient historic sees, represent nothing less than the mind and will of the Orthodox Church, which has neither been in submission to the Roman pontiff, nor commemorated him liturgically, since the Great Schism. Their authority comes from the Apostles, who were all given the authority to bind and loose by Christ Himself, not just Peter. All were commanded to go out to the nations and spread the Gospel, not just Peter. All were commanded to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, not just Peter.All were commanded to teach as He had taught them, not just Peter.

Yet Simon was renamed Peter, the rock? The rock which God will build his Church on? Yet all Catholic Bishops also baptize, spread the gospel, bind and loose their flocks, pass on the Faith etc. You seem to set up a False analogy of saying it is the Pope against all Bishops, when the Correct analogy is it is the Pope and a Majority of the Bishops against a small faction of Bishops not in Union with the Pope.

Oh, and by the way, we are in union with both St. Peter's successorand the Pope

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

St. Meletius did not preside at the council of Ephesus but died 50 years earlier.

I think Montalban is perhaps conflating two events.

The first is the St. Meletius presided over the First Council of Constantinople, despite being out of communion with Rome.

The second is that Dioscoros (not Nestorius) was not immediately denied a seat at Chalcedon, despite the protestations of Pope Leo's legates, who had instructions from him not to allow Dioscoros to take a seat (because Pope Leo already considered Dioscoros to have been guilty of misconduct and had excommunicated him). The council itself only denied Dioscoros a seat once charges were brought against him not for the reason that Pope Leo had excommunicated him, but because one cannot judge his own case.

What you say is true, but Nestorius also was tried at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, although the Archbishop of Old Rome had already condemned him.

I very much doubt that Nestorius was received at Ephesus with all due honor, but then perhaps I am remembering wrong. I know for sure, however, that Dioscoros was treated with due honor at Chalcedon, before he was found guilty.

The emperor had called for bishops to assemble in the city of Ephesus. The emperor sent as his representative Count Candidian (Bury, J. B., (1958), History of the later Roman Empire : from the death of Theodosius I to the death of Justinian (A.D. 395 to A.D. 565) (Volume 1) ,(Dover Publications; NY), p353)

Two groups of bishops gathered in the city. One group of bishops formed around Cyril of Alexandria. The other group centered around Nestorius(Hill, B. R., (2004) Jesus, the Christ: Contemporary Perspectives, (Twenty-Third Publications), p230.

Both groups had duly assembled in Ephesus as commanded by the emperor. But which was the official council? Candidian was unable to control proceedings; to bring the two groups togetherRunciman, S., (1977), The Byzantine Theocracy, (Cambridge University Press), p37

Cyril had canonical grounds for opening the first session... "Nonetheless he must have been acutely aware that he could claim no legal status for his synod under imperial law until the official reading of the Emperor’s Sacra had taken place.” McGuckin, J, (2004), Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p78.

Cyril, in order to constitute a legal council needed to have the backing of the emperor, or his representative. However Candidian was a supporter of Nestorius.Chrystal, J., (1985) Authoritative Christianity (Volume One) (James Chrystal Publisher; Jersey City, NJ), p50.

Candidian went to the group supporting Cyril and demanded that they reconvene with Nestorius’ group. He said he had come with the Sacra and had no time to stand around and wait. Cyril asked him what did the Sacra say. Candidian read it out before Cyril’s group. He then realised that he had now formally given the go-ahead for Cyril’s group to begin as the council; because they were duly assembled as according to the wishes of the Emperor and the Sacra had been read before them. They thus convened the council, and effectively Nestorius’ group were left out in the cold. “When Candidian finished reading the Sacra he surely realised the full extent of his mistake. The Bishops acclaimed long life to the Emperor in demonstrative professions of loyalty, but now with the text officially declaimed in the symbolic presence of the whole Episcopal gathering the Synod of Ephesus was in formal session, legally as well as canonically sanctioned.” McGuckin, J, (2004), Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p79.

The group that had been duly assembled, with the Sacra of the Emperor read before it made it a legal council in the eyes of the civil authorities. By having the Sacra read out it served to legally validate the subsequent ActaMcGuckin, J, (2004), Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p81.

The council was only legal when the emperor’s representative had opened it, not as Catholics would imagine; solely because the Pope commanded it, or because the Pope's representative (as they imagine Cyril to be) was there.

The important facts therefore are:Nestorius had already been condemned by the pope but attended a council for the council to decide the matter. He had support, such as John of Antioch.

The matter was settled by a council judging for itself.

Nestorius (potentially) could have chaired the council (although the numbers of bishops in his circle were fewer then those around Cyril).

I am writing a book about this.

I am aware of the Ephesus situation, but I think that the claim that Nestorius was received at the council is of limited apologetic value, since the council we now recognize as the legitimate one did not include John of Antioch and his faction. However the situation in general, including the post Ephesus crisis has good value, as it shows just how much the emperor and how little the pope was involved in ratifying Ecumenical Synods.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

I am aware of the Ephesus situation, but I think that the claim that Nestorius was received at the council is of limited apologetic value, since the council we now recognize as the legitimate one did not include John of Antioch and his faction. However the situation in general, including the post Ephesus crisis has good value, as it shows just how much the emperor and how little the pope was involved in ratifying Ecumenical Synods.

I would disagree. It's very important to note that Nestorius could attend the city as called for and potentially head the council AFTER he'd been condemned a heretic by the pope.

It totally undermines the Catholic positions on

a) papal authority

AND

b) that Cyril was the pope's 'representative' - this incidence moreso because Catholics in order to establish authority have to account for why a council was convened AFTER his condemnation of Nestorius. They do so by inventing a position for Cyril that Cyril never held.

Certainly Cyril agreed with the pope in the view of Nestorius' teachings.

Catholics try to pretend that the church councils were headed by a representative of the pope.

It may seem distasteful for some in reading that Cyril worked 'politically' in bringing about his own headship of the council, in the manner that he did.

I am aware of the Ephesus situation, but I think that the claim that Nestorius was received at the council is of limited apologetic value, since the council we now recognize as the legitimate one did not include John of Antioch and his faction. However the situation in general, including the post Ephesus crisis has good value, as it shows just how much the emperor and how little the pope was involved in ratifying Ecumenical Synods.

I would disagree. It's very important to note that Nestorius could attend the city as called for and potentially head the council AFTER he'd been condemned a heretic by the pope.

It totally undermines the Catholic positions on

a) papal authority

AND

b) that Cyril was the pope's 'representative' - this incidence moreso because Catholics in order to establish authority have to account for why a council was convened AFTER his condemnation of Nestorius. They do so by inventing a position for Cyril that Cyril never held.

Certainly Cyril agreed with the pope in the view of Nestorius' teachings.

Catholics try to pretend that the church councils were headed by a representative of the pope.

It may seem distasteful for some in reading that Cyril worked 'politically' in bringing about his own headship of the council, in the manner that he did.

Even if St Cyril had been the Popes's representativ, the 2nd Oecumenical council is a blow to the claim that "the church councils were headed by a representative of the pope".

and not by any secular leader “…it goes without saying that no temporal ruler has the right to do so.” Cardinal Newman expressed this later point when he claimed that the church was given a promise that it “should have no master upon earth”. Thielen, T. T., (1960) What is an Ecumenical Council (The Newman Press; Westminster, MD), p22.

Does someone have this bible passage in original Greek? I have been led to believe that the words Petro, and Petra were used to describe Peter as Petro and Rock as Petra leaving me to believe that one was not the same as the other. Now this may not be the case in Latin translations.

Does someone have this bible passage in original Greek? I have been led to believe that the words Petro, and Petra were used to describe Peter as Petro and Rock as Petra leaving me to believe that one was not the same as the other. Now this may not be the case in Latin translations.

The contention is that Petro and Petra were just translations, and the original conversation was in Aramaic where Jesus called Simon to be Cephas, which is the Aramaic for "rock".

Does someone have this bible passage in original Greek? I have been led to believe that the words Petro, and Petra were used to describe Peter as Petro and Rock as Petra leaving me to believe that one was not the same as the other. Now this may not be the case in Latin translations.

The contention is that Petro and Petra were just translations, and the original conversation was in Aramaic where Jesus called Simon to be Cephas, which is the Aramaic for "rock".

The Apostles all are the 'foundations' of the church (according to Ephesians). I think this is a play on the fact that Peter is the 'rock'. You build a literal church on rock (Jesus is the cornerstone).

All therefore are 'rock' and the foundation.

Therefore it doesn't matter to me if Peter is the rock, because he's not exclusively so

Does someone have this bible passage in original Greek? I have been led to believe that the words Petro, and Petra were used to describe Peter as Petro and Rock as Petra leaving me to believe that one was not the same as the other. Now this may not be the case in Latin translations.

The contention is that Petro and Petra were just translations, and the original conversation was in Aramaic where Jesus called Simon to be Cephas, which is the Aramaic for "rock".

The Apostles all are the 'foundations' of the church (according to Ephesians). I think this is a play on the fact that Peter is the 'rock'. You build a literal church on rock (Jesus is the cornerstone).

All therefore are 'rock' and the foundation.

Therefore it doesn't matter to me if Peter is the rock, because he's not exclusively so

and not by any secular leader “…it goes without saying that no temporal ruler has the right to do so.” Cardinal Newman expressed this later point when he claimed that the church was given a promise that it “should have no master upon earth”. Thielen, T. T., (1960) What is an Ecumenical Council (The Newman Press; Westminster, MD), p22.

As always in these matters, the Vatican doesn't have the facts on its side:

Quote

The pope was pleased that the whole East should be united to condemn the new heresy. He sent two bishops, Arcadius and Projectus, to represent himself and his Roman council, and the Roman priest, Philip, as his personal representative. Philip, therefore, takes the first place, though, not being a bishop, he could not preside. It was probably a matter of course that the Patriarch of Alexandria should be president. The legates were directed not to take part in the discussions, but to give judgment on them. Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Does someone have this bible passage in original Greek? I have been led to believe that the words Petro, and Petra were used to describe Peter as Petro and Rock as Petra leaving me to believe that one was not the same as the other. Now this may not be the case in Latin translations.

StPeter is the rock in this passage, there is no question about it. The problem is what is concluded from this by rc. And even if St Peter was to be the only rock, wich is not the case, there are 3 Petrine Sees, in Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. And if Petrine prerogativ is the main reason for primacy, they would have to explain how is it that Alexandria was on higher rank than Antioch, when Antioch has a direct Petrine foundation, and Alexandria only an indirect one through St Mark. Indeed, the Council of Chalcedone has settled the issue:

For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after herCanon 28 http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/chalcedon_canons.htm